Tuffy, I feel like you're intentionally ignoring a huge chunk of the process, it's starting to look like you're just trying to be a contrarian.

Any politician can make their position sound fantastic. If you just read about their platforms on their own sites (or the sites of organizations that support them while opposing others, including bias journalistic site), you're gonna find a lot of people just voting for the best speaker/most represented candidate. Research beyond that is very, very important.

First, I was never rude to you... at least not before you were to me. Second, you never explained why you disagree. I feel it's necessary to look into why certain candidates have certain platforms, why they're different from others, and what keeps them from agreeing, rather than just knowing the platforms themselves. That takes a bit of effort with a lot of key issues. I just asked why you think it's not necessary.

Find what hard? To understand why you think it's not necessary to look deeper into the issues than looking at the candidates' platforms? Of course you don't find that to be difficult. It sure makes things easier to not have to put any effort into it.

I'm sorry you find it hard to research and dig deeper. Most politicians are pretty easy to figure out. Most proposed legislation is pretty simple to decipher when you know a few tricks. I answered this pretty well just now in the other thread. Sort of came together there.

You seem to be a somewhat well read individual. Throughout your years, I'm sure you've picked up a few books on political/economic philosophies, as well as some books on economic history and opposing interpretations of those events... oh, and of course current event issues. If you haven't, then I'd say I have more reason to just stop caring about anything you say entirely, cuz obviously you haven't put nearly enough effort to make a truly informed opinion, the kind pepper and bug seem to strive for. If you have, then obviously you've done more than just reading a few webpages about the current candidates, and in your case, yes I'd agree that's all you have to do. But to expect everyone to have done as much base research is ludicrous.

I pretty much keep my head in the sand until the parties pick their candidates, but I will say that the tidbits of Santorum that have breached my bubble have been highly amusing. He says some very stupid things.

What ever happened to Rick Perry? Wasn't that loon in this race too? Now HE is some quality entertainment .

You seem to be a somewhat well read individual. Throughout your years, I'm sure you've picked up a few books on political/economic philosophies, as well as some books on economic history and opposing interpretations of those events... oh, and of course current event issues. If you haven't, then I'd say I have more reason to just stop caring about anything you say entirely, cuz obviously you haven't put nearly enough effort to make a truly informed opinion, the kind pepper and bug seem to strive for. If you have, then obviously you've done more than just reading a few webpages about the current candidates, and in your case, yes I'd agree that's all you have to do. But to expect everyone to have done as much base research is ludicrous.

My conceit. Awesome.

A lot to parse there and I haven't got my bifocals back yet...

I don't consider myself well-read. I've never touched a Brontë yet nor a Kant. But I've got The Critique of Pure Reason on my Kindle and mean to get to it this year for sure. The Brontës can go F themselves; life is too short. Breadth and depth has to go a lot wider and much deeper before I'll let myself lay claim to "Well-Read".

I'm not sure why you care what I say anyway, but hey, thanks for reading!

I don't know if you're demanding my credentials here or saying that you don't need them. Whatever; I've read a lot, everything I could get my hands on, since roughly 1970, starting with the Encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z and there was a period where I avoided fiction entirely because I was stuck on philosophy and religion. I laughingly attempted to learn Hebrew so I could read the Old Testament in the original. I didn't get through all of Genesis, but it did get me laid once.

Anyway, when I turned 18, it took me two weeks or longer of pouring over the texts of legislation and party platforms, checking various newspapers, magazines, and all that so that I could go into the booth informed and with a card with all my votes planned out. This was pre-internet. It's gotten easier since. I don't expect it to be "simple" to anyone early-on, but yeah, it does get easier over time.

I take civic duty seriously. Meaning I've voted in every primary, every referendum, every gubernatorial, every presidential election in the last 25+ years. Currently, I am Judge of Elections in Allegheny County Ward 8 Zone 4. This is an elected position, but even less impressive than it sounds. My job is primarily to make sure that no legal voter is disenfranchised and that all laws are upheld. Interesting sidenote: It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a police officer to come within 100 feet of the polling place except to vote or if summoned by the J.o.E. to remove someone actively committing a crime. This was enacted at a time when robber barons and unions and whatnot would attempt, often successfully, to intimidate of voters. But look at me wandering like an old person!

Santorum has temporarily left the race. He has a very sick child and my sympathies. He may use this as an honorable bow-out as he clearly hasn't got a chance. He's a bit too far into the religious right for the comfort zone of the majority of the US.

I don't consider myself well-read. I've never touched a Brontë yet nor a Kant. But I've got The Critique of Pure Reason on my Kindle and mean to get to it this year for sure. The Brontës can go F themselves; life is too short. Breadth and depth has to go a lot wider and much deeper before I'll let myself lay claim to "Well-Read".

I'm not sure why you care what I say anyway, but hey, thanks for reading!

I don't know if you're demanding my credentials here or saying that you don't need them. Whatever; I've read a lot, everything I could get my hands on, since roughly 1970, starting with the Encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z and there was a period where I avoided fiction entirely because I was stuck on philosophy and religion. I laughingly attempted to learn Hebrew so I could read the Old Testament in the original. I didn't get through all of Genesis, but it did get me laid once.

Anyway, when I turned 18, it took me two weeks or longer of pouring over the texts of legislation and party platforms, checking various newspapers, magazines, and all that so that I could go into the booth informed and with a card with all my votes planned out. This was pre-internet. It's gotten easier since. I don't expect it to be "simple" to anyone early-on, but yeah, it does get easier over time.

I take civic duty seriously. Meaning I've voted in every primary, every referendum, every gubernatorial, every presidential election in the last 25+ years. Currently, I am Judge of Elections in Allegheny County Ward 8 Zone 4. This is an elected position, but even less impressive than it sounds. My job is primarily to make sure that no legal voter is disenfranchised and that all laws are upheld. Interesting sidenote: It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a police officer to come within 100 feet of the polling place except to vote or if summoned by the J.o.E. to remove someone actively committing a crime. This was enacted at a time when robber barons and unions and whatnot would attempt, often successfully, to intimidate of voters. But look at me wandering like an old person!

Helps, too, if one can banish naïveté, read other people well, as well as between the lines.

Where's my medicine?

So you're saying you HAVEN'T put the effort into understanding the issues (at hand) deeply? But you've read the entire encyclopedia, and you work at elections? And Kant is your choice of author for understanding modern issues more deeply? Dunno what to make of that. It's almost like you're trying to stay as ambiguous as possible.

I'm not asking for your credentials. I couldn't care less. When I was 16, I had it easy with the internetz, but sought out the same as you when learning about then-current politics, particularly when it came to the war and the state of education. I had taken a few dual credit courses in government and economics. I had read a few books by Paul Krugman, since he wrote the textbook we were using. I thought I knew enough. Of course, I was a liberal and a Democrat, and even a Marxist when it came to imagining and creating the perfect world while brainstorming with my nerd buddies over lunch.

Then... I met a Libertarian.

His philosophies were... strange, but extremely sensible. I had quite a lot of objections still. He recommended some literature, and I got to reading. Turns out I didn't know it all (well, at least not the other side of it). Turns out politics is a HELL of a lot more complicated than just looking up a few facts and seeing if I "like" this policy or not. It's a study of history and its different interpretations in multiple subjects, including war, economics, measures of quality of life, etc. "If we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it" and all that. Then I got into the mathematics of it. Sure enough, I became a Libertarian.

In the end, despite everything I already knew from having done pretty much exactly as you've suggested and then some, there was still a hell of a lot of information that completely flipped my understanding of how the world works.

Thats fine. I just don't feel like being a counter point in a debate/argument between two of my favorite members when I'm not interested in joining the actual debate/argument.

There is no debate/argument.

Debate implies that one will win and the other will lose. Argument suggests that one party is capable of turning the other's opinion towards his own. Lib cannot "win" or be "defeated" because, bullshit to the end of days, political stances cannot be proven or disproven as valid, and his opinion is inflexible. Me, I don't care about winning and I'm poking him with a stick because he thinks that people really believe that they need government to force them to be charitable.

And with this, I will take your advice. Your words aren't worth reading when it comes to anything of actual importance. I'll still laugh at your antics, cuz you are a funny guy, but that's about it. Not much more I can ever expect.

That interview is worth watching even if you're not into their show. Those guys are true characters.

From Huff Post:

"Tim & Eric's Billion Dollar Movie" premiered at Sundance this week (and is available On Demand as of today), and fans of the comedy duo should be pleased to hear that the film is getting many positive reviews. The fact that scores of audience members have walked out during the screenings only seems to confirm that Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim have delivered a product that may be as enraging as it is funny.

But Tim and Eric themselves have something to be enraged about: The movie "Rango," the children's animated film from 2011 that stars a cowboy lizard in the Old West.

On January 18, Heidecker tweeted: "Sundance gang: B$M got Rango'd (large portions of out movie replaced with Rango outtakes) please ask #sundance to take out the Rango!" After being retweeted widely, Heidecker kept up the campaign.

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.